I think there is undeniably a problem in the US regarding homelessness (mostly drug addicts it seems) and people being too poor to buy housing in many areas of the country. I think the progressive solutions tend to inhibit the functioning parts of our society. We all care about the downtrodden and I'm interested in finding new out of the box types of solutions that would potentially move the homeless outside of the main parts of cities onto totally unused land.
Here are some interesting projects related to building small isolated communities for homeless.
https://charterforcompassion.org/pro...ion-catches-on
https://www.businessinsider.com/a-lo...ss-2021-3?op=1
https://offgridpermaculture.com/Find..._No_Money.html
The problems are things such as controlling crime in the communities and supplying services such as food/water/sewage etc. I think this could potentially be handled by giving government grant money to corporations and universities to come up with organization plans and tech to help set up functioning communities for homeless folks so they don't have to live on the streets or occupy premium buildings in cities. If isolated, then allowing inexpensive controlled drug use would be better (but not ideal) and would not lead to addicts committing crimes in the city centers. Since we live in a highly litigious society, homeless people would probably have to sign a waiver to live in such communities. Grant money can be used to test out new forms of living 'off the grid', finding ways to control crime and giving basic necessities. It would not only help the downtrodden with basic life needs until they get back on their feet but could be used as a test bed to develop new tech which may be needed to sustain life here on Earth in the future or even on other celestial bodies.
Just a few thoughts if anyone is interested. I don't think taking buildings from people, taxing the crap out of people, or forcing people to live with drug addicted homeless people outside their homes is the right way to do things (and it won't work anyway). What I am interested in is more of a win - win type of situation. Homeless/poor win by getting into a tenable situation with housing etc whereas the tax payers win by developing new tech and ideas for suitable/alternative living application and research. I think successful policies are those where tax money is used for things that also benefit tax payers.
Here are some interesting projects related to building small isolated communities for homeless.
https://charterforcompassion.org/pro...ion-catches-on
https://www.businessinsider.com/a-lo...ss-2021-3?op=1
https://offgridpermaculture.com/Find..._No_Money.html
The problems are things such as controlling crime in the communities and supplying services such as food/water/sewage etc. I think this could potentially be handled by giving government grant money to corporations and universities to come up with organization plans and tech to help set up functioning communities for homeless folks so they don't have to live on the streets or occupy premium buildings in cities. If isolated, then allowing inexpensive controlled drug use would be better (but not ideal) and would not lead to addicts committing crimes in the city centers. Since we live in a highly litigious society, homeless people would probably have to sign a waiver to live in such communities. Grant money can be used to test out new forms of living 'off the grid', finding ways to control crime and giving basic necessities. It would not only help the downtrodden with basic life needs until they get back on their feet but could be used as a test bed to develop new tech which may be needed to sustain life here on Earth in the future or even on other celestial bodies.
Just a few thoughts if anyone is interested. I don't think taking buildings from people, taxing the crap out of people, or forcing people to live with drug addicted homeless people outside their homes is the right way to do things (and it won't work anyway). What I am interested in is more of a win - win type of situation. Homeless/poor win by getting into a tenable situation with housing etc whereas the tax payers win by developing new tech and ideas for suitable/alternative living application and research. I think successful policies are those where tax money is used for things that also benefit tax payers.
Comment